







































* * 




^ A. ^ ft. . * *f*. XV i jrfW/SV. <* 

: vy :mM%°* 0 

^ ..v*— * 


% 

«• <$ 

• *& 
c° .• 



•$-, 

'V ^Tr. *' a 

• * •, % A v 

» v> 


SN r$* 



^ ^ - 

V^ v * 


^ \<V O, 

"o. 7 * ,G V 'o, 
A v ^ r 0 r ,»IV. 

' ^ vXMI1 ^ A 'Jsmzy^ * v* « ' 

iO > - CsilSrS^-^v •< \A r\> 


L / 


iT<CSs'/ / 7]\\^$ > $9 **<£» " •^- > V<* v V' V r^A <0 1 

v^v v^-> v^Sv v 


^ 0 
4 o. 


0 * 


• ^ . X ^ *■ 

' U ° ^ <L^ % 

O 


W . 



**y *- 

.v** «—~. 

^ ♦ <y %> °* 

'"y <* *••»• y' 'o '..* 

A ♦ V o° 6 — *- 

t TV -r *_A A> O 


* / % '• 

»■* 0 -r v. - 



*° A 1 

...**y ...%/* 

»'. % ^ /, 
vr 

. C'C : . 

4 6 * V '‘?W .-V ^ 

0 “ ♦^SSSW'. “O A' '• ,r»-. 


• y * 

• % / .' 

♦ <y ^ O 

• A ^ 

A.^ _ • v '** ^ 

*y * irk \U£6££^ * y P > ^ 





/ VA-*’/ ^ *: 

> v *j:i^:. a° ^ ,. v >*k‘£'. c * 


• 9 1 


- «?* °V : . 

4 <y * ■ 




% ^ * 

VC 

.v.- 4 / % 

p, V o * Cl _ 

y^> x U 0 ^ O 

^ 0 ^ O 

% - 

V* Cr 

.“’ y °C 0 *■ ”+*. * 

... v v *■*’ y ° 4 . 4 '-’ , f o v'»... 

♦ ^ V f r * o ? 

# ^ ^ A*^ v 


Or &• * ^o A . »■ • *^ < 

1 .•^V\W' 0 A .W/C,’ 




* *9 ^ 


A ^ : 

4 .v ^ -rw 



■ V , V. '«’>* A° V. *'...‘ 4 .A <.> *'.. ** 4 .0^ 

A * v^/C ■* V c^ v .° ist"' V jC *'V** V f0^ e 0 ’" 


^0^ 


<$> * 0 HO°* y y * 

(. ^ f !_•«- *o 


K <f>» _ 







• I 



-&? * v 






*0* 








/ l ^gS?: /\ l WWs J\ -.j®^ ; * 

C • o + W£^* <t_ c° °o V 

» \>> •- * if) <\ * <Sxs\\ifV* „ * 

o ^ •^WXSS^' * *° ^ * 

°<p ^ % *,o’' °o **•#*•• A°° ^ ** 

* °* c> .<y *»* * % ^ <N « • * ^ 0 v- ,• • , V\ 

’• \ J> /£££• u *♦ .^W/fr 'V / **&£& <> 

ft ,a»- v** fr-v °, 

. ^ vfflw.* <£ \ '-Wmi; A\. • 

^ *'..«* A <* v 

O , v * *> <d> f\*^ 

'. o .4* *w% 4 * *, c° •" 

’ ’W •*’ ! 

• vSH^’ i. 0 - 7 * *. 

^ °o V^f»* 0° ^ ' 






t * 


• ^ ^ - 

: v^ V 

• ,$ : 

* <.7 ^ 

4 <L V «> 


; 

♦ cS O * ■ 
<J> * n » O 9 <y o * 

aO* "•• • % *> v % . * * •* V 

^ «£* .NfiKV. <%. ^ .>V/v'» ^ 




• o 


V '* ?¥?"•• .«* 9+ **rrv-’ *° 



^ A 
V* v 

* <•*? 

4 * V 


* ’ • ° - c> 


c\ ,o > 

„ <P. ^ 

° cy * 

• fp V « 

■ey . a VA * 

^ ♦ A V 0 

.»' a <^ • * * *y a ^ 

A * x *dBk. r* . c .‘kssnir. ° ** 

.v* .‘j tM&‘ ++# : 


' y o\^ 


4 o 
<y 


v ♦ * 

"* ^0< 

• <1 r o + 

9 A V O * 


A* ** 


4 > 


• c? ^ - 

•» A ^ * 

4 c/a -. 

v -^ r ' ♦ *" ,\ r 

0 V fc 0 " 9 ♦ ^o • » • • ♦ 

% 0 4^ + V^> ^ 

. ^ V . 4 '-A n' 

/ ^° t 

• o # “C* <o v ♦•••% v- V * 


: .* 

: '. 

* .«- v ' Tun»Ar ■> 

<S* 'S, <..*• <> 

Cr ,•••. ^o a* 

0 . ‘^irv- ° W* .* 

: .' 

'* - *° ^ V 

f u A "* 

' .4? ^ 


^ * w# „ 

^ o fS) 

*#/■«* ^P 

< » o ■ 



1 • O- o. <0* v F «* •». o 




SLAVERY—KANSAS—PARTIES THEREON. 


SPEECH 


HON. A. E/MAXWELL, OF FLORIDA, 



DELIVERED 


IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 1, 1856. 


WASHINGTON: 

printed at the congressional globe office 

1856 . 







SLAVERY—KANSAS—PARTIES THEREON 


The House being in the Committee of the 
Whole on the state of the Union— 

Mr. MAXWELL said: 

Mr. Chairman: I will continue the discussion 
which was renewed a few days since by the gen¬ 
tleman from Ohio, [Mr. Stanton,] and has been 
kept up by other gentlemen on the same side. We 
may attach what importance we please to other 
matters, but it is impossible not to see that the 
subjects of that discussion—questions connect¬ 
ed with the rights of the southern portion of tfiis 
Union, and with the government of Kansas, are 
to overshadow all others. They do overshadow 
all others here, and every preparation abroad j 
shows that they are to do the same elsewhere, at 
least for several months to come. Nor do I won¬ 
der at this; for they are questions not only big 
with the fate of parties, but perhaps involving the 
fate of our Government itself? I shall address ! 
myself to those questions, considering not only j 
our duty here, but having reference also to the 1 
action of the people in the coming elections. I 

If, before 1 heard the gentleman from Ohio, j 
[Mr. Stanton,] and the gentleman from Penn-! 
sylvania, [Mr. Ritchie,] I had not already chosen j 
the line of remark to be pursued by me, I could 
not better maintain the cause I have risen to ad- j 
vocate than by presenting the counter view as to 
the historical facts upon which they dwelt. Had 
I given my mind to the investigation of those i 
facts, I should have applied this test at the outset:! 
whether, in the legislation of Congress, in all that 
line of what is called continuous legislation to the | 
same end, there has been in any one instance, 
except in that of the Missouri restriction, legis- 1 
lation which was destructive of existing rights, 1 
or prohibitory of the exercise of such rights? It 
is my belief, as educed from the history of legis¬ 
lation in respect to Territories, that, with the 
single exception named, Congress has declined 
to exercise any power to destroy the rights, or j 
to prohibit the exercise of rights, claimed by the 
southern portion of the Union. 

Those gentlemen have pointed us to the action of | 
Congress very soon after the adoption of the Con-1( 


stitution, in passing a bill to authorize a territo¬ 
rial government for the Northwestern Territory; 
but in that nothing was said about that part of 
the ordinance of 1789 which prohibited slavery 
there. This was simply declining, on the part of 
Congress, to touch the subject—to legislate upon 
the subject at all—acting, I presume, upon the 
idea, that the solemn compact between the State 
of Virginia and the then existing Government 
of the United States ought to be held binding 
upon the subsequent Government. It cannot be 
justly inferred from this, that Congress acted 
upon the belief, that the Constitution authorized 
it, of its own proper power, to deal adversely with 
slavery. And so, I think, it would be found, in 
reference to other instances of legislation: it has 
all along declined to act against slavery, although 
often importuned thereto; and hence the contin¬ 
uous line of precedent claimed as having estab¬ 
lished the power in Congress to legislate slavery 
out of the Territories, or to reach it otherwise, 
does not in fact exist. Nor has its exercise of 
power upon other important matters, such as 
have been mentioned to prove full and unlimited 
power overall matters in the Territories, gone to 
the extent insisted upon as to this; for, in regard 
to them, its action has been protective of rights, 
and therefore must be distinguished from action 
against slavery, inasmuch as that would be de¬ 
structive of rights. Congress, in all its legislation, 
must act with a view to the ends of the Govern¬ 
ment, and, looking strictly to those ends, it would 
be difficult to show that it has any business in the 
way of shaping the domestic oharacter of either 
Territorial or State institutions. 

But, as I before said, my mind having been di¬ 
rected to other aspects of the questions before us, 
I shall not pretend to offer anything like a full 
reply to the views of the gentlemen from Penn- 
t sylvania [Mr. Ritchie] and Ohio, [Mr. Stanton,] 
as to the proper teachings of past legislation by 
Congress. There has been heretofore such a dif¬ 
ference of opinion as to the purport of past legis¬ 
lation, and as to the views of certain leading 
fathers of the Republic—both sides claiming these 










4 


for authority to sustain their own respective con¬ 
flicting views—and there is so wide a difference 
now, that it is hardly probable that discussion of 
these points at this time will come any nearer to- 
wards adjusting them. Wecannotagreeasto what 
has been the purport of that legislation, or as to 
what Washington or Jefferson would do, if called 
to heal our present division; and hence I prefer to 
pass all such questions, and to go at once to deal 
with facts, opinions, prejudices, passions, and all 
this complex web of difficulties, as they actually 
exist, shaking and distracting the country. 

Primarily, the difference between those who 
are in controversy upon the slavery question is to 
be found in their conflicting views of the nature, 
justice, and propriety of slavery itself. Northern 
belief holds it to be an evil and a curse; while in 
the South it is regarded as no offense against 
either the laws of God or humanity; and since 
discussion has been forced to the subject, and we 
have been driven to examine it, not only as con¬ 
nected with the social and economical interests 
of the white race, in regions where slavery most 
naturally thrives, but in the light of facts which 
show us the real condition of the negro in the 
several states of slavery, barbarism, and free¬ 
dom, the southern mind (more of late years 
than before) is generally adopting the conclusion 
that the institution is a positive good. Thus radi¬ 
cally opposed in opinion, and there being no like¬ 
lihood that they will ever agree—for the more 
this subject is discussed and agitated, especially 
under the prejudices and passions which inflame 
large portions of the people on both sides, the 
wider will grow the separation of their minds— 
what can be done to prevent that ultimate fearful 
conflict which such antagonism forbodes ? Will 
you legislate upon the assumption that one is 
wrong and the other right ? Consider the con¬ 
dition into which this controversy is brought, and 
I think gentlemen will be ready to agree with me 
that such legislation would not be tolerated on 
either side. Reconcilement of belief is impossible; 
persistence in angry strife will be fatal; and the 
question is, where the parties can meet to gain 
escape, saving both the Constitution and the 
Union ? 

On both sides, sir, the watchword of the day 
is “ aggression!” Northern men complain of it, 
and the South complains of it—the former, be¬ 
cause of a supposed right to hold and keep com¬ 
mon territory free from the introduction of slavery, 
which right, it is alleged, has been violated by 
the adoption of a policy which renders slavery 
possible in the Territories; the latter, because of 
a claim to equal participation in the benefits and 
enjoyments of that common territory, which is 
sought to be denied by anti-slavery provisoes and 
rohibitions. The course of argument pursued I 
y gentlemen on the other side shows that if we 
look to the Constitution for something pertaining 
to the issue thus made, so express and positive 
as that no one may be misled in regard to it, we 
will look in vain. The express words are not 
there to tell us what was intended. Perhaps it was 
not anticipated that such an issue would arise. 
Perhaps, if anticipated, it was hoped that it would 
be decided in a spirit of justice, equality, and 
forbearing patriotism, such as had brought forth 
and finished the Constitution itself. 

But, though nothing express and positive can 


be found to decide this point, what we do know 

is, that there is nothing in the Constitution to 
forbid the equal enjoyment of common Territory 
by all citizens of the United States, and nothing 
to authorize Congress to forbid it. That, as a 
general proposition, would not be denied even by 
those gentlemen who are so adverse to the insti¬ 
tution of slavery. We know further that the 
spirit in which that Constitution was adopted, 
was one of toleration of all conflicting interests 
and all conflicting views of policy; and also, that 
it was intended that those acting under the' Con¬ 
stitution should be guarded jealously against in¬ 
flicting anything like State or sectional inequality. 
And yet further: in order that its hand might be 
staid from the exercise of any but impartial 
power, it was intended to limit the scope of the 
Government, and to withhold from it the posses¬ 
sion of any power which could be used otherwise 
than impartially. With such knowledge of the 
limitations and spirit of our Constitution, and 
seeing that it clearly recognizes the slave interest, 
and throws a shield of protection over it, is it 
strange that southern men should hold any in¬ 
terference, even incidentally, against that interest, 
to be unwarranted and improper? Is it strange 
in them to feel that what the Constitution recog¬ 
nizes, secures, protects, men who owe fealty to it 
should not harshly condemn or rudely touch? 

If we would determine aright between these 
parties, we must look to their positions and claims 
as they present themselves in their federated capa¬ 
city. It is idle to refine on questions of abstract 
justice. It is idle to prate sentimentality. It is idle 
to speak of God-given birthrights, and of every 
man’s inherent title to personal freedom. It is 
worse than idle to deify freedom in the spirit ol 
a French revolution, as has been done by some 
gentlemen on this floor, while declaiming againsl 
southern slavery—thereby implying that the 
freedom secured by the framers of the Constitu¬ 
tion, as it existed at that day and as it presented 
itself to them, is not a freedom sufficient for theii 
descendants. Whatever may be the truth—what¬ 
ever may be right, even though it lead to aboli¬ 
tion, or, on the other hand, to an opening of ali 
the States to slavery, we cannot move or act here 
except in subordination to the authority which!, 
gives being to Congress. Grant that slavery isj.i 
right: then let it work its own career. Grant" 
that it is wrong: then let it be attacked by a force 
legitimately empowered to attack it. To proceed 
otherwise than directed by these conclusions, | 
would be to disregard the limitations and restric¬ 
tions of defined government, and to throw every 
interest upon the mercy of a wild discretion, such 
as no member of the House, however eager to | 
accomplish his purposes, will profess an inclina¬ 
tion to do. 

Looking, sir, to this mutual charge of aggres- 
sion, it is evident that, so far as there is truth in 

it, the cause of complaint should be removed. As 
coming from the North, what is there to justify 
it? Not one of her citizens is prevented, or pro¬ 
posed to be prevented, by any action of Congress, 
or by any action elsewhere, from freely going 
into any Territory or any State of these United | 
States, with all his property. There is no exclu¬ 
sion tor him—no denial of the least privilege 
which any other citizen may rightfully enjoy. 
There is no interference with any right he may 










5 


have—social, pecuniary, or political. And if at I 
this point gentlemen tell me that there isinterfer- ! 
ence with the rights of northern freemen, because j 
they cannot consent to go into the Territory and J 
engage in labor there while that of slaves is per- 
mitted, I must say to them, they must make all J 
allowance for our inability to appreciate such an j 
argument. In the southern country, free labor | 
and slave labor associated is not regarded as a S 
damning degradation to the white man. So far 
from this, it may be safely asserted, that a majority 
of southern slaveholders may be found, day after 
day, side by side with their negroes, plowing in 
the same field, engaged with them in the same 
^rVork. Those who have a sufficient property to 
|bxempt them from the necessity of labor, are not, 
■of course, thus found. But the greater proportion 
ofsouthern slaveholders—thosehavingtwo, three, 
or a dozen slaves—can be seen any day in the 
busier seasons, laboring with their negroes. And 
when we see that our southern fathers think it no 
degradation to their sons to put them at labor 
with the slaves they own, as is done by numbers 
everywhere in the South, I repeat that gentlemen 
must make due allowance for our inability to ap¬ 
preciate that sentiment of a northern laborer, ! 
which is represented here as looking with abhor- j 
rence to any prospect of having his labor brought! 
into near neighboi’hood with that of a slave. The 
spirit of freedom which will prevent such a man 
from associating his labor with that of a negro, is 
one that has not yet reached the people of our J 
southern country. 

How, then, has there been aggression of the 
South against the North ? I have already said 
that no citizen of the North is prohibited from 
going to any part of the country with all his prop¬ 
erty. It surely will not be urged that there has 
been aggression, because we ask that the same 
right shall be conceded to us to go with our ! 
property that is given to others to go with theirs! 
Aggression, in that we claim equal rights in the 
common territory with others! Aggression, in ; 
that we will not submit to an odious discrimina¬ 
tion against our property! Aggression, in that 
we deny the authority of others to check southern 
development! Aggression, in that aggression is 
resisted! 

Is there anything, on the other hand, to justify 
this charge as coming from the South? She claims 
for her citizens and for her States perfect equality 
of right with all other citizens and all other States. 
She claims that there is nothing in the Constitu¬ 
tion to mark a distinction between her property 
and theirs, to her disadvantage. She claims that 
the Constitution not only recognizes, but provides 
for the security of the slave property she holds, j 
Nor do I understand that these claims are directly 
denied, except the latter, by a few such extremists 
as the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Gran¬ 
ger.] And yet it is insisted that in Territories 
which belong to all alike, her citizens, if they go 
there, shall not merely be prevented from taking 
their slaves, which amounts to practical exclu-! 
sionof themselyes—and in that view, their equal 
rights being acknowledged, is certainly a wrong— 
but shall not be permitted to exercise, and, as 
far as they may, act upon their free opinion as to | 
the policy which should prevail in forming the j! 
domestic institutions of such Territories. It is j 
this interference with an undoubted political right 


—the right of every citizen upon common terri¬ 
tory to judge for himself as to the best state of 
society compatible with our American systems of 
government, and to use his individual influence 
towards establishing that state of society, so that, 
if there should be a sufficient number agreeing 
with him, they may at the proper time so declare 
by their action—it is, I say, interference with such 
a right, denied only to those whose views tolerate 
slavery, that gives just occasion for the complaint 
we make. If they are not to be deprived of their 
equal political rights, when the time comes for 
assuming the sovereignty which belongs to each 
confederate of the Union, they should certainly 
be permitted to build the new State upon the 
model of the old ones to which they have been ac¬ 
customed, if, in the judgment of a majority there, 
it is preferable—those old ones, with all their 
social and domestic attributes, and notwithstand¬ 
ing the sins and the odium sought to be cast upon 
them, being as highly regarded and as closely 
cherished by the Constitution as any others, and 
therefore not to be stigmatized, directly or indi¬ 
rectly, by any organ of the Government which 
derives its sole authority from that Constitution. 
But this permission, under the policy we depre¬ 
cate, is denied. Every candid mind must admit 
that interference such as this is a wrong upon any 
class of citizens affected by it. It is aggression 
to force the formation of States after a certain 
model, or rather against a certain model, whether 
the people prefer it or not, and that is aggression 
upon fundamental political rights, dearest of all 
others to Americans. 

There is no little importance attached to the 
question in its connection with rights and inter¬ 
ests pertaining to slave property as mere prop¬ 
erty; and the South, upon that point alone, will 
never consent to treatment which implies any 
wrong or fault in her title to such property. But 
the view I am presenting has not more import¬ 
ance in this connection than belongs to it as 
affecting the question of obvious political rights— 
rights which our system of Government, so far 
from questioning, assumes to be inalienably in¬ 
herent in the people. I will illustrate. A north¬ 
ern citizen goes to a Territory of the United 
States—perhaps from the gentleman’s [Mr. Stan¬ 
ton] district. In passing to it, he has the chance 
to observe the working of the slave system, to 
study the character of the negro, to investigate 
the economy of slavery, and to gather data gen¬ 
erally for a more intelligent opinion of southern 
institutions than his prejudices and want of op¬ 
portunity for acquiring proper information had 
before permitted, and the result of his inquiry has 
been to change his views of the justice and pro¬ 
priety of slavery. This is no strained supposi¬ 
tion, for it is a thing constantly occurring in cases 
where northern citizens transfer their residence 
to the southern States. He goes to help found a 
new State, and must have his share of responsi¬ 
bility therein. In molding the institutions there, 
he now believes it would conduce to the well¬ 
being and prosperity of the people, and would not 
violate any right or law of humanity to permit 
the introduction of slaves; but under the prohib¬ 
itory policy which anti-Nebraska men advocate 
he is told: “ No; Congress forbids you to exer¬ 
cise any such belief. Though it is for yourself 
you are acting — though it is your own interest 














6 


and welfare you are seeking—and though in other 
things you are the sole and proper judge of what 
is best—yet upon this one thing your opinion 
shall in no wise operate.” Such a restriction 
upon a clear political right may not seem hard 
when applied to an individual case; but carry the 
illustration further: suppose the same that hap¬ 
pens in his case should happen to whole masses 
of northern citizens—to enough of them to control J 
in the formation of the State government—is it 
no wrong, no hardship, that they are utterly 
denied the exercise of their opinion and prefer¬ 
ence as to the nature of the institutions under 
which they are to live? Why, sir, such inter¬ 
ference would not be tolerated a moment if it 
related to any other question of domestic polity— 
certainly not if it related to any that came under 
the view of those who framed the Federal Gov¬ 
ernment. It would be denounced as an unau¬ 
thorized and meddlesome attempt to shape State 
policy by dictation of Congress, and would be 
met as a dangerous stride towards centralizing 
despotism. Yet it is just this that Wilmot-pro- 
vioo men and anti-Nebraska men insist upon as 
to the right of opinion of southern citizens on a 
great question of local policy, when those citizens 
choose to cast their lot in one of the common 
Territories. They, though a majority of the 
people there, shall not be judges as to what is 
right and best for themselves. Is not this invest¬ 
ing Congress with all power and all discretion over 
the future State? If the power exists, and may 
be exercised as to one measure, it may reach to 
all others; and thus will be sapped from our Fed¬ 
eral system the very essence of its strength, the 
very preservative of its life—an independence in j 
each State to control its own domestic affairs. 

If this be not “aggression,” I know not what 
is—aggression, not merely against southern slav¬ 
ery, but, in aiming at slavery, aggression against 
a primary and sacred right of citizens to govern 
themselves—against the privilege of the people to 
exclusive action in their own behalf within that 
sphere not intended or expected to be reached by 
the Government for the Union. 

You see, then, Mr. Chairman, on which side 
rests the truth of the charge of which I have 
been speaking. Consider a moment longer the 
relative position of the parties. The South says 
to the North—to every citizen of the North, “ Go, 
if you wish, to the common territory, and take 
with you whatever property you may own. You 
shall enjoy there every privilege that attaches to 
any citizen of the United States.” On the other 
hand, the North says to the South and her citi¬ 
zens, “ You may go to the territory, but you shall 
not take with you a certain species of your prop¬ 
erty, and shall not frame the institutions there so 
as ever to permit the introduction of that property, 
even though a majority of the people interested 
should think it wisest and best.” Now which is j 
the aggrieved party ? Which has perfect freedom 
to go and do as it lists? Which has this freedom 
curtailed and restricted? Who can wonder that 
the South, in contemplating the prospect of having j 
her citizens thus discriminated against, thus thrust 
down from their station of equality, should feel 
Tier proud spirit chafe within her, and should 
rouse every energy of her impulsive but resolute 
sons to the assertion of her full rights, and the j 
rejection of an odious badge of inferiority ? j 


The northern people would understand this 
better if the strength of the sections were reversed, 
and the South, having full control of Congress, 
should seek by Federal authority to force slavery 
into the Territories. There is as clear a right to 
do this as there is to force its exclusion. Would 
the North submit, if such a right were claimed 
and exercised ? But the South makes no pretension 
to such a right, and would be forbid to exercise 
it, because of her position that Congress has no 
concern in the matter, oneway or another. Yet the 
opposite position could be as easily justified for 
her, under the contingency supposed, as it can be 
for the section which is at this time the stronger. 

Let us now see how this spirit of aggression 
is displaying itself in the present emergency—in 
the bitter strife about Kansas. The effort there, 
sustained by those who befriend the movement 
here, is to do by indirection what the enemies of 
southern institutions failed to accomplish directly. « 
The questions thus raised may be considered now I 
with a view to show how wrongs of aggression 5 
grow greater by evasive struggles that lead to H 
worse wrongs. 

There is, first, a question as to the governmental \ 
condition of Kansas. Is she a Territory without 
organization, and without law, and struggling for 
both; or is she already under both, and acting by 
competent authority ? Much as this question has 
been cumbered by a multitude of allegations, it 
is easily answered by a few simple facts. Every¬ 
body admits that from some source or other Con¬ 
gress has authority to frame temporary govern¬ 
ments for the Territories of the U nited States. Con¬ 
gress in pursuance of that authority did frame a 
government for Kansas. It is not pretended any¬ 
where that the act by which this was done is not 
of valid force, and hence there can be no doubt 
that her government is of a legitimate character. 
Whatever mistaken policy that government may 
have pursued, if any; whatever irregularities it 
may have practiced, if any; whatever wrongs it 
may have done or permitted, if any—these would I 

not set aside the fact that she has government, 
and legitimate government, subject in its exercise I 
to all the conditions belonging to other American «j 
governments. "'j 

But it is alleged that it has grossly abused its 
functions, and should therefore be made to surren¬ 
der them and give place to another. Then comes 
the further question, whether Congress, from 
whom this Government emanated, shall recognize 
and uphold it, or shall take by the hand and en¬ 
courage those in that Territory who, for this 
alleged cause, act independently of it, and in der¬ 
ogation and defiance of its authority ? Had there 
been abuses of more than a transient character, 
(admitting, for argument’s sake, the charge;) had 
the abuses been long persisted in, so as to have 
become a permanent evil, without hope of remedy 
by ordinary methods, there might be reasonable 
ground for cutting away the government and 
substituting a new one; and if Congress, having 
authority to this end should refuse, the people 
subject to the government might assume the right 
of revolution, and protect themselves. But no 
such condition can be asserted. The chief wrong 
complained of was one single in its nature, per¬ 
petrated upon a single occasion, never repeated, 
and not of a character to be sustained by even 
those who are said to have been benefited by it—I 

















7 


allude to the alleged armed invasion by non-resi¬ 
dents to control the elections in the spring of 
1855. Admit all that has been said on this sub¬ 
ject, and I then aver that the wrong itself is but 
a paltry thing compared with the danger of using 
it as a pretext for revolution. Society could have 
no stability, nor could government command 
either respect or support, if the people upon the 
first wrong done, without waiting to see whether 
it may not be corrected or remedied by existing ! 
legitimate means, shall claim a resort which should 
be taken only by those who are suffering the fixed 
bonds of oppression. If the wrong were one 
flowing from any defect or excessive power of the 
Government itself, the case would be different; 
for then the fault is not simply in the act done, 1 
but is inherent, lasting, and subject to frequent 
display. But it is not pretended of this instance, 
that the wrong was induced by any vice in the 
form or character of the Government. The force 
at the election was a thing ended, and did not 
proceed from any prompting, sanction, or spirit 
of acquiescence by that Government, whether 
considered in reference to those who had charge 
of it, or in reference to its nature and principles. 
Would this force be used again? Would it be 
even once repeated? That no man can say. 
Those who have disregarded the authority of the 
Government given by Congress, and who openly 
repudiate it as having forfeited any rightful force 
over them, would not stay their radical opposition 
till a second trial could be made; but before 
another election came round to test the working 
of the new Government, they had already de¬ 
termined to resist it, and to supersede it by a 
government of their own. There is nothing in 
precedent, in history, in reason, or even in the 
dictates of a just indignation, to sanction such 
extraordinary measures for giving relief from a 
grievance which was of yesterday, and which 
has no root in the Government under which it 
was perpetrated. Destroy authority which for 
aught that has been seen may be good in itself, 
because in a solitary instance it has failed to man¬ 
ifest a proper vigor! Destroy an organized sys¬ 
tem of society which has no vicious element 
proved upon it by trial and experience, because 
one wrong has escaped its checking hand ! That 
would be monstrous, and no man will justify it. 
Yet what less than this is proposed by the To- 
peka-convention men ? 

It maybe supposed that I do injustice to those 
men by narrowing their ground of complaint, 
inasmuch as they also charge that the action of 
the first Legislature of Kansas was oppressive, 
and against liberty. I hope, sir, even granting 
this to be true, it is not seriously adduced as suf¬ 
ficient, before further trial, to justify resistance to 
constituted authority, amounting to revolution. 
The American people have enjoyed the forms of 
free government to little purpose, if they will not 
at once see an easy and legitimate remedy for 
such evils, where the elective franchise is not 
taken away. They have but to select new legis¬ 
lators, and repeal the obnoxious laws. The bal¬ 
lot-box is a certain cure for wrongs inflicted 
upon the people; and the complainants, if they 
were a majority of the Territory, could have used 
it to relieve themselves. Why was not this relied 
on, instead of striking to destroy the government 


ing the gravest disasters to all the Union? It 
would insult the intelligence of our countrymen 
! to suppose it necessary to argue that evils should 
be borne for a short while, when a peaceful remedy 
can be found, rather than risk greater by hasty, 
disloyal, and violent action. IIow different from 
j this, though, has been the conduct of the free- 
State men of Kansas. It will not do for them to 
say, that the ordinary and easy remedy would 
not have been available for them, because of in¬ 
terference by armed invaders; for they made no 
experiment to ascertain whether this would be 
so or not. If it were so once, that made no rule 
for the future. At any rate, no one could justly 
conclude such would be the rule without again 
testing it—much less act upon the conclusion to 
drive society from its moorings upon the stormy 
sea of revolution. 

So, sir, assuming the truth to be the whole of 
what is charged, it furnishes no justification for 
the conduct of the free-State men in disregard¬ 
ing and defying the established government. But 
when it is known, as every one here must know, 
that the complaint has been most grossly exag¬ 
gerated—that the elections were purged of the 
violence, as far as it was made known, by the 
regular authority—in fact, by the very Mr. Reeder 
who now seeks to use the violence as the ore- 
text for extreme resorts—and that the laws de¬ 
nounced as oppressive have had parallels in the 
laws of the States, but in them, free and apt as 
are the people to assert iheir rights, did not pro- 
I voke the faintest pretense to a resumption of their 
sovereignty; when these palliatives are consid¬ 
ered, the conduct of those men goes deeper and 
deeper into the wretched abode of lawlessness 
and crime. 

I return to the question, shall Congress uphold 
the Government it established in Kansas, or 
shall it aid and abet those who rebel against it ? 
Shall it teach the duty of obedience to regular 
authority, or, for transient cause give free rein 
and success to revolutionary opposition ? We 
cannot sanction the action of the free-State men, 
without encouraging insubordination and con¬ 
tempt of organized government. We cannot accept 
I the free-State constitution without first legiti- 
| mating the defiance and resistance to the territorial 
organization which had life and authority from 
ourselves, and thus taking the attitude of the 
law-making power, upholding the law-defying 
power; of the preserver of order lending coun¬ 
tenance to the violator of order ; of the ruler of 
the storm yielding to the reckless will of the 
storm ! This, sir, would be the pitiable weak¬ 
ness Congress would exhibit by helping to dis¬ 
arm and prostrate the existing government, at the 
instigation of those who hold it in contempt, re¬ 
fusing to recognize and obey its authority. 

The issue, whether we will sustain or sternly 
condemn open defiance to regularly-constituted 
authority, cannot be shifted by appeals in behalf 
of the right of the citizens of a Territory to frame 
a State government for themselves, and then offer¬ 
ing us the Topeka constitution as a result of the 
exercise of that right. It was itself conceived and 
brought forth as the very act that would most 
easily excuse the attitude of rebellion. However 
excellent that constitution may be, (and I give 
no opinion of its merits,) or 


however wrong it 

itself, and thereby raise a commotion threaten- might be to reject it, if it had come before U3 








under other circumstances, and as in fact the 
work and choice of the people, we cannot conceal 
from our minds that it is the offspring of a spirit 
utterly inconsistent with the obligations due from 
good citizens to society and government, and 
should be met and treated as such. 

Do gentlemen grow indignant at the oppres¬ 
sions practiced upon a certain class of the people 
of Kansas, insisting that the greatest of these is 
the denial of their proper weight in the territorial 
government, and the refusal afterwards to listen 
to their wailing remonstrances? Why, sir, what 
remedy do they propose? All their righteous in¬ 
dignation and swelling eloquence go for naught, 
if they do not mean that it is a crying outrage 
to impose laws upon people without their sanc¬ 
tion. Proceeding upon the assumption that this 
is the case in Kansas, what remedy do they pro¬ 
pose ? A remedy, sir, that perpetrates the outrage 
m a degree as much higher as is a constitution 
higher than a mere law. No man will pretend 
that the Topeka constitution was either made or 
adopted by but one division of the people of 
Kansas. The other division, whether the greater 
or the smaller, being a subject of dispute which 
we have so far failed to settle, have taken no part 
therein, and have refused to take part therein, 
because the movement towards it originated in a 
spirit and from a purpose that law-abiding citi¬ 
zens could not approve. And yet this constitution 
is to be taken as emanating from the people of 
Kansas. Where are the data to show that a ma¬ 
jority of that people present it to us? We know 
that a large portion of them had nothing to do 
with it. We know there are features in it to 
which that large portion would not have con¬ 
sented. But we do not know that that portion is , 
not a majority of the people, or that they would 
not have had influence greatly to modify the con¬ 
stitution to their own views and liking, if, under 
a sense of duty to the existing government, they 
had not abstained from all connection with it. 
Shall we, under such circumstances, proceed as 
though they had been fully heard and represented ? 
Those who insist that we shall, are thereby con¬ 
demning themselves, strangling their own relief- 
cry, extinguishing their own guide-lights, or else 
exposing the rabid insincerity with which they 
treat this whole difficulty; and are the less to be 
trusted, because of the shameless facility they 
display to redress the alleged wrongs of their 
friends by inflicting the same wrongs, only more 
irremediable, upon others. 

I did not suppose, until recently, Mr. Chair¬ 
man, that this Topeka constitution would be 
seriously pressed upon Congress. I do not believe 
now that it is pressed with any earnest desire 
that Congress shall ratify it. It comes here to 
furnish another theme upon which to distort the 
views and action of southern men and of the 
friends of southern equality. It is taken up as 
another machine, the most available for the pres¬ 
ent, with which to manufacture agitation for the 
political market. The signs of the times indicate 
that the old ones have lost their efficiency, that 
the springs which move them are fast wearing 
out, or rather are discovered to be but the con- 
trivance of jugglery, and hence the necessity for , 
some new device to catch popular favor and pat- ] 
ronage. The furor against the Kansas-Nebraska 
act is subsiding, because the people have seen by 


what false alarm they were misled in regard to it. 
The repeal of that act, or the simple restoration of 
the Missouri restriction, so clamorously demand¬ 
ed a short while ago, have failed to supply a 
hopeful issue to slavery agitators, and they must 
therefore try what virtue there is in this new 
shift. That this is no mere conjecture must be 
apparent from the recent floundering struggles of 
the new-style Republican party in search of some 
ground for a safer foothold, and from the eager 
alacrity displayed here and elsewhere in finally 
settling down upon the Topeka constitution. It 
is taken as the best hope of its defenders for 
future party aims. Their battle for the presidency 
is to be fought upon it. 

Well, sir, we have but to expose the distortion 
of the true issue in this, as has been done in ref¬ 
erence to other points in the controversy about 
Kansas, and the result of the battle will only 
be shame and confusion to those who offer it. 
Whether here or before the people it cannot be 
that contempt and defiance of law and authority 
will be sustained, or that a portion of the people 
of a Territory, probably the smaller portion too, 
will be permitted to impose a constitution upon 
the whole people in which the other portion have 
had no voice, nor even the pretense of arty agency, 
directly or indirectly. A cause which upholds 
Government, and at the same time carefully 
guards the rights of all the people, must be a 
cause that cannot fail in this free country, the 
Topeka sages to the contrary notwithstanding. 

But after all, sir, it is the slavery question, 
lying behind these others, that makes the trouble 
which so much engages our attention. If we 
could settle that upon an enduring basis, there 
would be little more heard of the others. It pre¬ 
sents itself at every turn, is forced upon us at all 
points by the antagonists of southern institutions, 
and we cannot leave it to be disposed of as their 
prejudices and enmity would prescribe. Delicate 
as is the subject, and reluctant as we are to have 
the even tenor of American progress disturbed 
by its agitation, we are not permitted to pass it 
by unnoticed. Though a fair and just basis of 
settlement has been adopted, the aggressors seem 
to be enraged all the more, and we are now driven 
to put on our armor in defense of that basis. We 
can now see why it ought to be maintained— 
why we should to-day, and forever, abide by the 
principles of the Kansas-Nebraska act in their 
relation to slavery. 

Now, sir, in view of the fact, that there is a 
radical difference of opinion as to the nature and 
justness of slavery itself, a difference which can 
never be reconciled—in view of the fact that there 
is a radical difference of opinion as to what power 
Congress may or may not exercise over the sub¬ 
ject of slavery, and in view of the further fact, 
which I believe to be as fixed as any fact can be 
which is yet in the womb of the future, that 
neither party will tolerate the entire enforcement 
of the abstract views of the other, the question 
comes back upon us, how can we get rid of all 
this difficulty? How can it be removed? I con¬ 
fess I see but one way, and gentlemen may smile 
when I announce it, for they will find in it but a 
reiteration of the principles of the Kansas-Ne¬ 
braska bill. I see but that one way,and that is, 
to acknowledge the equal rights of the citizens of 
the sections, and their claim to undiscriminating 














9 


protection of their property, and to refrain from 
interference with the local domestic policy of 
either the States or Territories. I know these pro¬ 
positions involve the very points which make 
the strife; but when I see in them such evident 
fairness, equality, mutual forbearance, absti¬ 
nence from provocation, honorable avoidance of 
the causes of conflict, and reliance upon the peo¬ 
ple in matters which most nearly concern them¬ 
selves, and see in the movement towards any 
different course inevitable discord, and if pursued 
inexorably, inevitable disunion, my only hope 
is that the northern people will not continue to 
sanction persistence in any policy founded upon 
the reverse propositions. 

Mr. STANTON. I desire to know of the gen¬ 
tleman whether, in the settlement of this princi¬ 
ple, the South will surrender any of her claims? 
What will she abate of her demands? 

Mr. MAXWELL. The South surrenders 
nothing; but the settlement she desires contradicts 
that charge which is made against her,and against 
southern men, that they want to use the power 
of Congress to extend slavery. We disclaim 
that here and elsewhere. We not only do not 
ask that Congress should use its power to extend 
slavery, but we say that Congress has no concern 
whatever with the matter, and that slavery should ! 
be left free to take such direction as the will of i 
the people of every separate government in the 
Union may prescribe, so far as they are locally 
concerned, subject to rights secured by the Con¬ 
stitution. And now, sir, what does the North 
surrender by the enforcement of the propositions 
I have indicated as so reasonable and just ? Noth¬ 
ing. Will the gentleman tell me what she sur¬ 
renders ? 

Mr. STANTON. She surrenders the powers 
which have been exercised by Congress from the 
organization of the Government to prohibit slaves 
in the Territories. That is what she surren¬ 
ders. 

Mr. MAXWELL. I commenced, Mr. Chair¬ 
man, by the assertion, that a critical analysis of 
the legislation which has been presented to the 
view of the House, as showing the exercise of 
this power, would show that, with the single ex¬ 
ception of the Missouri restriction, such a power j 
has hever been exercised as that which is destruc- | 
tiveof property rights, or prohibitory of the free 
exercise of those rights. What the gentleman 
says< the North surrenders, we deny she ever had 
to surrender. ButI cannot go into a discussion 
of that question now. 

I will say further, as to the question propounded 
by the gentleman from Ohio: the North insists 
on the exercise by Congress of a power \yhich, j 
if exercised in full authority, will strike so vio- | 
lently against the views of right of the southern ] 
people, that they will not feel themselves true to 
their interests and their duty, but as wanting the I 
spirit which belongs to them as freemen, entitled ■ 
to the protection of the Constitution, if they j 
should quietly submit. Even granting that such 
a power does exist, let me say to the gentleman 
that this controversy is now in a position to ren¬ 
der its exercise fatal; and if it should again be 
exercised there will be resistance, and the coun¬ 
try will be brought into a struggle from which the 
Union cannot escape without dismemberment, j 
That is my belief, sir. The South asks for the | 


exercise of no power by Congress, but only to 
be let alone. 

Mr. WALBRIDGE. I want to know if the gen¬ 
tleman means to say that, if this Government ex¬ 
ercise any acknowledged legitimate power vested 
in it, it will through that action produce a disso¬ 
lution of the Union? 

Mr. MAXWELL. I do not say any such 
thing as that. 

Mr. WALBRIDGE. I understood that to be 
the sentiment. 

Mr. MAXWELL. No, sir ; oh, no. 

Mr. WALBRIDGE. Did not 1 understand 
the gentleman to say- 

Mr. MAXWELL. I will tell the gentleman 
what I said, or intended to say, if he will listen 
a moment. I meant to say-that we denied such 
power in Congress; but that if you were satisfied 
Congress had it, and that it was its duty to exer¬ 
cise it, and if it did exercise it, then, granting you 
are right and we are wrong, nevertheless, with 
our convictions, our sense of duty would hold us 
recreant in not resisting. 

Mr. WALBRIDGE. I did not so understand 
the gentleman. 

Mr. MAXWELL. That is my idea—that 
whatever may be your opinion about the power, 
and whatever you may feel to be your duty, we 
in the first instance meet you by denying the 
power; and, standing on a denial, we say that if 
you exercise it, you do that which comes in such 
deadly conflict, not only with our interests, but 
with that protection which we believe the Con¬ 
stitution gives to us, that we cannot submit and 
still feel that we escape injury and dishonor. 

Hence, Mr. Chairman, impressed as the South 
is with the belief that the basis I have described 
is the only one upon which there can be any safe 
and permanent settlement of the controversy be¬ 
tween the sections, and recognizing in the prin¬ 
ciple which defeated the Wilmot proviso, and 
afterwards repealed the Missouri restriction, a 
conformity to that basis, she is satisfied to stand 
upon that principle, and determined, not more 
for her own sake than for the sake of the Union, 
which she would not lightly abandon, to hold 
fast the rights it affirms. Freedom of the people 
to regulate their own affairs, untrammeled by com¬ 
mands from Congress, she must, at all hazards, 
maintain, or else consent to be crippled, dwarfed, 
marked as the stricken victim of inimical central 
power. But she cannot hope, of herself, to keep 
the country to this; and we naturally inquire to 
whom she can look for aid. It must be found 
somewhere in the North—in some one of the 
divisions into which parties there are separated. 
Where? I will turn briefly to this inquiry. 

First—though, let me say, that it is the enemies 
of southern slavery who are pressing upon us 
the issue—they demand that Congress shall legis¬ 
late so as to curtail us of our rights in Kansas, 
and so as to force upon the people there the sort 
of institutions the majority here thinks best, 
rather than leave this to the free choice of those 
people. Abolitionists and the Republican party— 
the same in their hostility to the South—mean to 
give no rest here, or in the country, till they have 
nbolitionized all the Territories, or have been 
driven to cease their mischief by the condemna¬ 
tion of the popular verdict. They present us the 
alternative of submission, or war to the utmost; 


















10 



and we have no option but to accept it, and, I 
trust, no spirit but to do the duties of the trial as 
becomes the manhood of sturdy freemen. 

Who among: the men, or which among the 
parties, of the North, must be relied on to aid in 
checking their dangerous schemes? In opposition 
to their schemes, we must resort to the ground 
to which I have .pointed, as furnishing the only 
sure and safe escape from all this controversy. 
Who will stand there with us? It is particularly 
important that we should know; because the 
ardor, fierceness, and strength of the attack we 
will be called to repel will be far greater than was 
ever encountered before; and because the issue 
involves no less than the safety and permanency 
of our Government. To “ conquer a peace,’’the 
triumph must be complete. 

Judged by all the rules suited to the ascertain¬ 
ment of human action, there is but one party in 
the North upon which the country can rely in 
this emergency, and that is the Democratic party. 
Trace it through the past, and, however it may 
have halted and wavered at times, it will be found 
that history vindicates the assertion. Time will 
not allow me more than a simple allusion to very 
recent facts to sustain it. The Kansas-Nebraska 
bill, which passed two years ago, and which 
embodies the principle upon which alone the sec¬ 
tional controversy can be safely settled, had no 
northern supporters in Congress but from the 
Democratic party. In this Congress, to which 
members were elected amid the whirlwind of 
popular excitement unjustly provoked against 
that bill, there is no northern member but in the 
Democratic party who did not lend his voice and 
influence to sweep down those who had here 
helped to pass it, and who does not now condemn 
it. If it be right that Congress shall not interfere 
to shape the domestic institutions of an inchoate 
State, and if that be the basis to which we are 
brought by the Kansas-Nebraska bill — if this 
basis be the only one upon which we can hope 
to avert the inequality and injustice threatened 
by Abolitionists and Republicans—and if it must 
be maintained that the Government and the Union 
may be saved from the dark vortex into which 
the accomplishment of their purposes would 
plunge it, how can the country rely upon any 
for these ends, whose position was that of antag¬ 
onism to the bill, father than upon those who 
justified it from the beginning, justify it now, 
and have given every pledge of a readiness fo.r 
political martyrdom in its support for the future? 

But it is urged that the American party can 
be even more safely trusted to put the sectional 
controversy to rest than the Democratic. Upon 
what basis? Upon any other than that I have 
indicated as just to the South, just to the North, 
and alike honorable to both sections ? You 
have seen, sir, that I hold that to be impossible. 
Then, why look to the American rather than the 
Democratic party? Does its condemnation of 
the Kansas-Nebraska bill, which is now the 
special object of attack by the Republican party, 
endow it with special fitness to defend and main¬ 
tain those principles of the bill which that Repub¬ 
lican party denounce and intend to eradicate ? To 
say this is to say that the surest method to accom¬ 
plish a given end is to begin by giving excuse and j 
comfort to those who strike against that end. 

This is an extraordinary pretension of the Amer-; 


ican party, as it vaunts itself and its purposes in 
general terms, that it means to put an end to sec¬ 
tional agitation. That its merit in such an under¬ 
taking may be the more highly appreciated, it 
assumes that all other parties, the Democratic 
included, are encouraging and feeding that agita¬ 
tion. Is this true of the Democratic party? Does 
it seek to stir and aggravate sectional strife? As 
well might you say, sir, that the members of a 
society who unite to prevent injustice and wrong 
where rights under that society are sought to be 
denied or invaded, are chargeable with the strife 
that may ensue, as to say that this charge against 
the Democratic party is correct. That party takes 
no cognizance of sectional questions till some 
voice is raised to sound a note of attack upon a 
sectional interest. It takes no step in the direc¬ 
tion of sectional issues till called to defend some 
sectional right. It adds no clamor to any sec¬ 
tional agitation till its high and strong words are 
drawn out in resistance to sectional injustice. 
Let me ask gentlemen of the American party, 
especially those of the South, whether they hold 
it proper to do less? — whether they, when a 
Wilmot proviso is threatened, or a Missouri re¬ 
striction sought to be perpetuated, both denying 
the equal privileges of southern citizens, would 
remain silent and inactive, and tamely let the 
wrong be done? If yea, they must be content to 
incur the censure of all who hold the rights of 
their section worth defending and preserving. If 
not, then what less can they do than has been 
done by the party they accuse ? 

The Democratic party has simply stood forth 
in defense of southern rights when attacked. 
Without doubt, this has provoked the aggres¬ 
sors to loud clamor and angry agitation. But 
shall we, for this, forbear to offer defense? Shall 
we shrink from asserting and maintaining a right, 
because the violators of that right may thereby 
be roused to fury? This is what the American 
party would do, if its complaint against the party 
with which I act gives a true indication of its 
spirit. It will put an end to agitation by declin¬ 
ing to resist the wrong-doer, for if resisted there 
will necessarily be strife; by quietly taking upon 
the neck of the South the yoke prepared for her, 
for if refused there will be a struggle; by giving 
full rein to the crusaders against slavery, for if 
checked they will rend the heavens with their 
fanatical mad outcry; by ignobly yielding the 
things that are ours to the first demand, for if we 
hesitate the noise of trouble will come; by closing 
the ear, that it may not listen when violence is 
preached, and chaining the tongue, that it may 
not remonstrate when injury is offered, for if ear 
and tongue are free to perform their functions, 
the coming violence and injury will rouse even 
the most abject among us from the stupor of silent 
uncomplaining submission. 

Again, sir, I ask if the American party would 
do less than resent and resist injustice to the 
South ? Whatever may be thought of other por¬ 
tions of the party, I am unwilling to presume that 
the southern portion would. Then, if agitation 
is to be repressed by them, how will they go 
about it? It is from those who make war upon 
the South that the evil flows. Unless they can 
j be silenced, or driven from their wicked purpose, 
or unless the country can be brought to take a firm 
and fixed position upon a principle applicable to 

















f 


11 


questions of slavery which shall disarm them, 
they can never be withheld from their agitating 
schemes. 1 fear the American party has no skill 
to meet either of these conditions. It is too prone 
to the “ pretermitting ” process; and, when tired 
of that, turns too blandly to smile upon the men 
who are really guilty of raising the agitation; for 
when they condemn the Administration for its 
agency in the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska 
bill, as they did in their late Philadelphia con¬ 
vention, they undoubtedly give encouragement 
to those who so strongly resisted the meed of 
justice to the South conferred by that bill. Not 
thus, nor by putting forth a candidate for the 
presidency whose views of present disturbing 
questions are unavowed, will it quell the heaving 
waves of anti-slavery fanaticism ! How, then, is 
is its pretension to do this to be accomplished ? 
Some say, by simply letting the troublesome 
questions alone. How easy that would be if 
those who provoke the evil, by efforts to disturb 
sacred constitutional rights, would only let them 
alone at their bidding! They will not do it. They 
insist upon doing the wrong. They insist upon 
denying the South what she claims as her clear 
right. In this state of things, to refuse to meet 
and resist them for fear of agitation is to sur¬ 
render the whole ground, and to give up the South 
a helpless prey to her persecutors. Is the Amer¬ 
ican party prepared for this? Its declarations so 
indicate; and it must be met and judged accord¬ 
ingly; but if its members disavow such a course 
they justify the Democratic party for the very 
thing they pretend to condemn. Alas ! it is easy 
to denounce others in general set phrase. It 
is easy for those w r ho have no sound faith for 
themselves to be ever discrediting the faith of 
others; but it is also fortunate that the demands 
of practical life are almost sure to expose the 
frailties men hide behind their disguises. 

Now, sir, there will be no abatement of agita¬ 
tion till a principle is evolved upon which all the 
country can stand. The virtue of temporizing 
is lost. A solid basis must be found, where 
men and sections can honorably stand together. 
As long as we have slavery, there will be fanatical 
zealots to rail against it; and even among more 
temperate men who do not understand its econ¬ 
omy and appreciate its true spirit, there will be 
strivings against it. The difficulty, so as both 
to avoid the violation of constitutional obligations, 
and to keep down agitation, is to meet this fact 
in the right way. I have already pointed to the 
only safe method of solving this difficulty. We 
must, in reference to Territories, abide by and 
maintain the principle adopted in the Kansas- 
Nebraska bill, that Congress has no authority to 
interfere with the question of slavery in the 
Territories, and must leave it to the regulation 
of the people there under the Federal Constitu¬ 
tion; and, in reference to other questions of slav¬ 
ery, that Congress must faithfully observe the 
guarantees of that Constitution. When once the 
policy marked out by this view is firmly estab¬ 
lished, the strife and the evil will have been con¬ 
quered, but not before. The Democratic party is 
moving to this end. Seeing the hopelessness of 
staying agitation while any shifting or uncertain 
basis is occupied, it prefers to plant itself upon 
this position, as upon .tin immovable rock, and 
there boldly encounter $hat storms may come, 


assured that if its country cannot at last find 
security there, security will not be had anywhere, 
nor peace any more gladden her hopes. 

If this be agitation, the American party must 
make the most of it. We arc willing to risk all 
the damage that can be inflicted by its attack 
upon such a position. Our Constitution and our 
country demand that we shrink from no peril we 
incur in maintaining it. 

But I have not done with this charge upon my 
party. I am not content with simply casting it 
off. I retort it upon our accusers, not in the spirit of 
bravado, but for causes that justify me in so doing. 

I charge the American party as guilty of having 
contributed to sustain the agitation of which, as 
I have shown, they unjustly accuse us. In its 
first days of triumph, the days when it was enabled 
to send into this Hall from the North a majority 
of its adherents, and when it sent to the Senate 
such men as have there superseded sound national 
Democrats, no one will deny that it had a spirit 
which looked to southern slavery as a stupendous 
curse, needing to be dealt with as such by all the 
agitating influences which could be successfully 
used against it. But since the present American 
party claims to have purged itself of those who, 
in the beginning of its career, thus prostituted its 
character, is it yet in a position to exempt it from 
the charge I make? Not at all. As I have 
already intimated, the countenance it gives to the 
Republican party by its stab at the Kansas-Ne¬ 
braska bill in the Philadelphia convention, can 
have no other effect than to strengthen those who 
agitate against that bill. But, besides this, the 
spirit of its Representatives here is to provoke 
agitation, even in the South, by raising and press¬ 
ing a question as to the soundness or unsoundness 
of northern Democrats upon questions connected 
with the rights of the South. Whether or not those 
questions be settled as the South would have them, 
(and 1 believe they are,) they are, at least so far 
as the present object of controversy is concerned, 
settled one way or the other; and crimination 
now in regard to them can have no other end than 
to stir the agitation which is so much deprecated. 
If, therefore, it be the special mission of this new 
party to stop agitation, it shows its aptness for 
the work by throwing in fuel which can but keep 
it flaming. 

But this complaint against northern Democrats, 
if it amounts to anything, is a complaint that they 
were not willing to give the South enough of what 
she claims to be her due. Supposing this true, 
there was no other party of the North, not ex¬ 
cepting the American, willing to give so much. 
All others, as will not be denied, were for retaining 
the prohibition against southern citizens, which 
those northern Democrats helped to remove, and 
that would have been the absolute denial of even 
any shadow of the right we claim. Would this 
have been better or more satisfactory? Now, 
unless these Americans intend to ask for more 
than was obtained—and that they dare not do, 
for it would provoke agitqtion, and agitation they 
profess to abhor, and intend to make it their spe¬ 
cial business to repress, standing for that purpose, 
according to their own pretension, as a break¬ 
water between other parties; or unless they pre¬ 
sent in the North a party willing to practice more 
equal justice to the South than the Democratic- 
arid that is utterly hopeless, for none has yet gone 










= 



even so far in her behalf; they will but do mis- ! 
chief, and weaken the cause of the South by their j 
war upon northern Democrats. The Republicans i 
understand this perfectly; and hence their kind 
readiness, as evinced in the early part of our ses¬ 
sion, to offer encouragement and supply muni¬ 
tions in promoting such war. They see that, in 
proportion to its success, will be opened the way 
for their own success. They see further to their 
advantage, that, while they are threatening the 
destruction of the citadel itself, there are Amer¬ 
icans dividing its defenders, and vexatiously 
busying their energies to save some minor out¬ 
work. 

The example thus presented is not one to be 
followed—I certainly will not follow it. Give 
me the Nebraska principle of free access for all 
citizens with their property to common territory, 
and of protection for that property there; and 
even though given with qualifications to which 1 
object, I will not sacrifice the principle itself in 
supreme concern about those qualifications. 
Who would not, sir, 


= 

“ In troubles reign, 

Losing a mite, a mountain gain ?” 

We are in the face of a mighty opposition 
which would take from us the principle and the 
undoubted privilege it confers, and would place 
in its stead eternal exclusion of the property of 
southern citizens from common territory, and yet 
there are those—some, like the gentleman from 
Tennessee, [Mr. Zollicoffer,] because a right 
reason is not given, and others, like the gentle¬ 
man from Kentucky, [Mr. Cox,] because they 
cannot, on all points, find a full agreement of 
opinion—who would jeopard all by a quarrel with 
friends as true as themselves to the main right. 

It does seem to me, Mr. Chairman, looking 
to the state of the sectional controversy, to the 
mode by which it can be honorably and perma¬ 
nently settled, to the facts which point to those in 
the North who agree to that mode, and to the 
hopelessness of settling it by any other, that to 
counsel the southern people to distrust of north¬ 
ern Democrats in this crisis, is to counsel them to 
suicide, or else to unending strife. 


% 

*14 





















* ^ # * 
j ... 


& . . <■ • *. ■<* 



„ -t 


-w » 



\ *w y - ‘ 

'* -'Ste % A 


A vf* 

* / 'V * 

A ... % A^ 

0 o 0 " 1 ♦ O 


G w "b .1^ ‘ 



V 


^oK 


o_ v 



r, ^ ^ 

. A**<L 

4 > V ‘ 


o A i " ; A 
♦ V <* 



<b • * * <0 

£\'^ \ 0°* • 
*- ^o« ° 



«5 0 ^ 

o * ^ - Ja 

^ * ° N ° ° ^ ^ * • • 1 

% & /aVa^ 'V c# 

W\* 







* v* v <> *° ^* y ^ 

^ N 9 ^ ••** aV^ , j 

.cr o c "** *c> -j> . •»’*.* 4 





*9^ 

-♦ o 0 * # * _ _. 
^ *» « A 0 ^ ® " 0 

% x *9*..*^v ^ 





.* ^ 


A <* *?.?* <G* * 

► .• ••'./♦ ^ ,<V e°_V*l 



'* WO * ^ S , 1 

\ %<* \A 


jy \d a « 

a 6^ *^0 aJ^ • *• 1 * ♦} 

0 .V^Bfc. °- ^ 

* ! Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process, u. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 


<^2 ' Treatment Date: May 2010 

^ PreservationTechnologies 

0 A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION \ 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 


(724)779-2111 













^ t* ^ ,o* • . 1 ' • 

v JPn///Z*> * A* ^ -o .♦ JFtu/ZZz. 

^ <y ; 

' 7 &, ^ ^ 

-*£- * VH\\\\y ' v * « 

fi» «» • <j_l> 

•s*. *■»»'>’ . 

• v A \> , 


v A «- v > 

’A <,'«.»* 

. v ' • , t3>, , 

• ° NT »WZ?i.' %. <! 

; *b v* .' 

• .0 ^ • ‘ 



'c ’\ 

A v o M/ * ■6,-’ *'cP^ • 

. <§r^> « -o. v 
► <^ 'o . * * (S 

. c ^ . CT 0 0 " * ♦ 

* 'V 0 *j5S5vVv^' o 

V- w . 0 ,- . 

^,/ % / v^*X "V* 

*f0(g, ^" *£, C .>** \r. ( vV^ 

^ -a^' a > • <» *.f # ,.* o 1- %, '*5?rf*' a* 

' ° / ->V & /ASStrV* ° vr *W 

f-‘ •j ma ™'-' ■' ~ -^w«o. r,.. .<m 


\A 

v. 


S rrsA “ ' £ ‘° •‘'MTSS* '°> •( 

r 4 -, >vW>°’ A A j. 0 ^ V 

A «> o_ o A 

«5> ^ • « e . Oj * * i * * A® * o 

> V s .,*••- Ap v 



o ^rw •* *» .\ V *\ i ///AV^,\V»5 o - *p 

e» ' ,■* <25 ' ^ ^ o u y <^ 

<V '• •»* <0^* \? vf!«*\A <, *'•*»* <0^ 

* % c, 0 .^i. °o / .^l*. ^ / .a; 

Ji*. '-ov* 

j 5 ^ jp-n#. ‘.wW^.* 4 0 . -*^s 


-W : ^ : .»; 3* : M 

^z* ^ 

'mPa? '••.»•* A 0 < *’ ^o. “^^v’ A^ 



4 ^ 0 < «^B;. -of ;i 

rf- f iP -7 ^ -1 

V y °<V ‘^A** ^ ' 

y. % A «>vVa- %. A* . m . - 













































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































